From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Tue Dec 24 10:30:16 2013
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 501B83582FA; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:30:16 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08AA9358284
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:30:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:56206)
	by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1VvOJa-0005gQ-7C (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:30:14 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1VvOJa-0004SC-5d (Exim 4.72) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 24 Dec 2013 09:30:14 +0000
Received: from [91.125.105.167] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 24 Dec 2013 09:30:14 +0000
Date: 24 Dec 2013 09:30:14 +0000
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: sc22wg5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5170)  (j3.2006)    [ Draft corrigendum 3]
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.5.1312240930140.15232@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20131224090005.287B7358284@www.open-std.org>
References: <20131126013542.D88A93582CC@www.open-std.org><20131220171849.090F03582F4@www.open-std.org><20131222004843.861D635835A@www.open-std.org><1387678359.20328.7.camel@van-laptop><20131222162956.B9CCF3583E4@www.open-std.org>
 <20131223195610.E662635830E@www.open-std.org>
 <20131224090005.287B7358284@www.open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Dec 24 2013, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
>...
>>The argument is that computed GO TO ought to be replaced by SELECT CASE.
>>Well, the code is a coroutine.
>
> I think this is precisely the case when computed GOTO is superior to 
> SELECT CASE.

Way back when, I used assigned GOTO for that :-(

Yes.  It's not a big deal, because such code is very rare (which is more a
social effect than a technical one), and none of the alternative methods
are seriously worse than the others.


Regards,
Nick.